ARB.P. 1444/2026 $~13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010381172026 + ARB.P. 1444/2026 & I.A. 22232/2026 G4S SECURE SOLUTION INDIA PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Eklavya Bahl, Advocate. versus KHYBER AGRO FARMS PVT LTD .....Respondent Through: Mr. Yahiya Kesar, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD O R D E R % 18.09.2026 1. The present Petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes under the Contract for Security Services dated 17.07.2017 (hereinafter referred to as “Contract”) executed between the Petitioner and the Respondent for providing security guarding services by the Petitioner at Respondent’s premises and location situated at Village Ladhu, Lethpora, Tehsil Pampore, District Pulwama, Kashmir, J&K- 192122. 2. It is stated that since the Respondent started defaulting in making payments against the invoices raised by the Petitioner, disputes arose between the Parties under the Contract. 3. Clause 45 of the Contract contains an arbitration clause by which the Parties have decided to get their disputes adjudicated through arbitration and This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/09/2026 at 10:43:50 ARB.P. 1444/2026 the Courts at Delhi have been conferred with jurisdiction. The said Clause reads as under: “Any claims, dispute and or difference (including a dispute regarding the existence, validity or termination of this agreement arising out of, or relating to this contract including interpretation of its terms will be resolved through joint discussions of the authorized representatives of the parties. However, if any such claim, dispute and or difference cannot resolved through such joint discussions within thirty (30) days of the date of the notice then the matter shall be referred for adjudication to the Arbitration of a sole arbitrator to be appointed by the parties in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and rules made thereunder including any modifications, amendments and future enactments thereto. The venue for the arbitration will be New Delhi. The decision of the Arbitrator shall be final and binding on both the parties.” 4. It is stated that a notice under Section 21 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 invoking arbitration was issued by the Petitioner to the Respondent on 20.03.2026 and the same has been replied to by the Respondent on 03.04.2026. It is pertinent to mention that by way of the notice invoking arbitration, the Petitioner had unilaterally appointed an Arbitrator which has been objected to by the Respondent in its reply dated 03.04.2026, meaning thereby, the Respondent has acknowledged the existence of an arbitration clause. In any event, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in Perkins Eastman Architects DPC & Anr. vs. HSCC (India) Limited, (2020) 20 SCC 760, unilateral appointment of an Arbitrator is not permitted. 5. Notice was issued in the petition on 18.08.2026. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/09/2026 at 10:43:50 ARB.P. 1444/2026 6. Mr. Yahiya Kesar, learned Counsel, enters appearance on behalf of the Respondent. He states that he will file his Vakalatnama within three days. 7. Learned Counsel for the Respondent opposes the present petition by raising three objections being (i) the Contract has come to an end; (ii) there is a mediation clause in the Contract and therefore, invocation of arbitration is premature; and (iii) there are serious disputes on the invoices being raised by the Petitioner. 8. A perusal of the material on record indicates that the Contract has been extended up till 31.03.2022. Invoices have been raised up till 27.04.2023. Notice under Section 21 has been issued on 20.03.2026. On the face of it, it cannot be said that the claim is completely barred by time. In any event, in view of the judgment passed by the Apex Court SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Krish Spinning, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1754, it is for the Arbitrator to take a decision on this aspect. The relevant portion of the said judgment reads as under: “122. Once an arbitration agreement exists between parties, then the option of approaching the civil court becomes unavailable to them. In such a scenario, if the parties seek to raise a dispute, they necessarily have to do so before the arbitral tribunal. The arbitral tribunal, in turn, can only be constituted as per the procedure agreed upon between the parties. However, if there is a failure of the agreed upon procedure, then the duty of appointing the arbitral tribunal falls upon the referral court under Section 11 of the Act, 1996. If the referral court, at this stage, goes beyond the scope of enquiry as provided under the section and examines the issue of “accord and satisfaction”, then it would amount to usurpation of the power which the parties This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/09/2026 at 10:43:50 ARB.P. 1444/2026 had intended to be exercisable by the arbitral tribunal alone and not by the national courts. Such a scenario would impeach arbitral autonomy and would not fit well with the scheme of the Act, 1996. ***** 125. We are also of the view that ex-facie frivolity and dishonesty in litigation is an aspect which the arbitral tribunal is equally, if not more, capable to decide upon the appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties. We say so because the arbitral tribunal has the benefit of going through all the relevant evidence and pleadings in much more detail than the referral court. If the referral court is able to see the frivolity in the litigation on the basis of bare minimum pleadings, then it would be incorrect to doubt that the arbitral tribunal would not be able to arrive at the same inference, most likely in the first few hearings itself, with the benefit of extensive pleadings and evidentiary material.” 9. This Court has also perused the arbitration clause which indicates that there is no requirement of mediation and therefore, invocation of arbitration cannot be found fault with. 10. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that efforts of mediation have already failed between the Parties and only thereafter, notice under Section 21 has been issued. He also states that the disputes regarding the invoices are arbitrable. 11. In view of the fact that disputes have arisen between the Parties and the Contract contains an arbitration clause, this Court is inclined to appoint an Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. 12. Accordingly, Mr. Amitabh Narendra, Advocate (Mob: 9810214798) This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/09/2026 at 10:43:50 ARB.P. 1444/2026 is appointed as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties. 13. The arbitration would take place under the aegis of the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (DIAC) and would abide by its rules and regulations. The learned Arbitrator shall be entitled to fees as per the Schedule of Fees maintained by the DIAC. 14. The learned Arbitrator is also requested to file the requisite disclosure under Section 12(2) of the Act within two weeks of entering on reference. 15. All rights and contentions of the parties in relation to the claims/counter-claims are kept open, to be decided by the learned Arbitrator on their merits, in accordance with law. 16. Needless to say, nothing in this Order shall be construed as an expression of this Court on the merits of the contentions of the parties. 17. The Petition stands disposed of in the above terms, along with pending application(s), if any. SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J SEPTEMBER 18, 2026 S. Zakir This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 24/09/2026 at 10:43:50